Filtering by
- All Subjects: L2 writing
- All Subjects: Wh-questions
- Creators: James, Mark A
This study articulates a framework of writing strategies and validates the framework by using it to examine the writing process of researchers as they write journal articles for publication. The framework advances a definition of writing strategies and a classification system for categorizing strategies that is based on strategic goals. In order to develop the framework, I first synthesize existing literature on writing strategies found in second language writing studies, composition studies, and second language acquisition. I then observe the writing process of four researchers as they write journal articles for publication and use the framework to analyze participants’ goals, their strategies for accomplishing goals, the resources they use to carry out strategies, and the variables that influence their goals and strategies. Data for the study was collected using qualitative methods, including video recordings of writing activities, stimulated-recall interviews, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The study shows that the framework introduced in the study is useful for analyzing writers’ strategies in a comprehensive way. An operationalizable definition of ‘writing strategies’ is the conscious and internalized agentive ideas of a writer about the best way to act, often with the use of resources, in order to reach specific writing goals embedded in a context. Writing strategies can be categorized into seven types of strategic goals: composing, coping, learning, communicating, self-representation, meta-strategies, and publishing. The framework provides a way to understand writing strategies holistically—as a unit of goal, action, and resource—and highlights variability in writers’ actions and use of resources. Some of this variability in writers’ strategies can be explained by the influence of various contextual factors, which are identified in the analysis. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of how the framework can be used to inform future research and classroom teaching on writing strategies.
In the late 1990s, Chomsky established the Minimalist Program which aims to describe the clause structure in as simple and economic mechanism as possible, and he advanced his famous research program to include phase theory, which aims to restrict the syntactic operations. On the other side, Rizzi (1997, 2001) proposed the Cartographic approach. In this approach, Rizzi attempted to analyze the left periphery domain in detail, and suggested the split CP hypothesis. Following those two approaches, Ginsburg (2009) and Totsuka (2015) unified them into one approach and suggested that ForceP, TopicP, and IntP are phasal domain while FocusP, FinP, and WhP are not. An overview of the Chomskyan model and Rizzi’s approach has been provided in Chapter 2. Also, this dissertation discussed the unified approach by Ginsburg (2009) and Totsuka (2015).
In addition to the overview of the general frameworks, this dissertation discussed the clause structure such as the word order, left periphery domain (i.e., CP), and resumption in MSA. Furthermore, Chapter 2 presented the earlier studies on the wh-questions in MSA and highlighted the major gap which this dissertation attempts to fill. In these studies the structure of wh-questions in MSA were mis-analyzed because the surface structure of the nine wh-questions might look the same, but, in fact, they are not. Therefore, this dissertation attempts to (re)study the structure of wh-questions with taking into consideration the resumption and [definiteness].
In Chapter 3, the methodology and corpus analysis, which is used in collecting the wh-questions in MSA, are discussed. Finally, Chapter 4 analyzed the corpus findings based on the unified approach by Ginsburg (2009) and Totsuka (2015) and showed some evidence that man ‘who’ and ayy ‘which’ questions in MSA are in phasal phrase (i.e., IntP) while the rest of wh-questions are not.